MickS wrote:I'm not happy about losing Gutierrez (would rather it had been Francisco) but I like what I'm reading about Valbuena and Joe Smith is solid. I think this might mean the end of Eddie Moo's tenure with the Tribe. Mujica's out of options and I don't see how he fits.

Can't wait to see how Nosco weighs in on the dealings of our "idiot" front office.

OOPs! I posted too late. Of course it was a terrible deal if Dennis says so.

Glad you liked it! I sure hope we sell Mujica for good coin to Japan because, if not, this deall might, in essence, become Gutierrez and Mujica for Smith and Valbuena...making the deal a small tick lower on my scale than it already is.

Remember, I was SCREAMING for them to do the Bay trade last year if it involved Shoppach, Laffey and Gutierrez because I thought the latter two would be exposed playing full time and Shoppach stood a 50/50 chance of the same thing. So, it's not like I am in love with Gutz. However, you can't justify this trade by saying that Gutz stinks and so getting this much for him was a good thing. It wasn't. We needed say Heilmann for Gutz. While that might blow up in our faces at least it had upside. This, not much upside. Sidearming righties are situational guys and Smith has proven in spades that is his past, present and future. While they have value you burn another spot (we will probably have a loogy, too) in your bullpen, so 2 of the 7 spots, on guys who may be out of the game after facing one batter. While that may work (the Mets used it last year to some success) it is not a good idea to have too many one trick ponies in your bullpen because it tends to burn out the pen too quickly (see Mets last year to some extent).

To summarize, Gutz is apparently going to immediately become Seattle's starting CFer. So we traded a potential future gold glove CFer with some power but questionable other offensive skills for a ROOGY and a guy whose offensive ceiling is probably Asdrubal Cabrera's curent offensive numbers in the majors but with less defense AND no versatility as a locked-in second baseman. Thus, in order for this trade to work out Gutierrez has to fall on his face as a starter and Smith and Valbuena have to reach their limited potential. Hmmm, seems like a deck stacked against us on this one.

So, be guarded if you want about this deal because that is the best I think anyone can be. If it is the extra inch we need to push us over the top, great. But you already know how that philosophy has worked out for the Indians under Shapiro so far.

Now, sit back and watch and listen to hear if Shapiro spins that Joe Smith is not just a situational righty and that Valbuena has the skills to hit 10-15 HR in the majors and be a gold glove defender. THAT is when you will know this trade is a bust and that Shapiro really has no idea how to do his job.

MickS wrote:I'm not happy about losing Gutierrez (would rather it had been Francisco) but I like what I'm reading about Valbuena and Joe Smith is solid. I think this might mean the end of Eddie Moo's tenure with the Tribe. Mujica's out of options and I don't see how he fits.

Can't wait to see how Nosco weighs in on the dealings of our "idiot" front office.

OOPs! I posted too late. Of course it was a terrible deal if Dennis says so.

Glad you liked it! I sure hope we sell Mujica for good coin to Japan because, if not, this deall might, in essence, become Gutierrez and Mujica for Smith and Valbuena...making the deal a small tick lower on my scale than it already is.

Remember, I was SCREAMING for them to do the Bay trade last year if it involved Shoppach, Laffey and Gutierrez because I thought the latter two would be exposed playing full time and Shoppach stood a 50/50 chance of the same thing. So, it's not like I am in love with Gutz. However, you can't justify this trade by saying that Gutz stinks and so getting this much for him was a good thing. It wasn't. We needed say Heilmann for Gutz. While that might blow up in our faces at least it had upside. This, not much upside. Sidearming righties are situational guys and Smith has proven in spades that is his past, present and future. While they have value you burn another spot (we will probably have a loogy, too) in your bullpen, so 2 of the 7 spots, on guys who may be out of the game after facing one batter. While that may work (the Mets used it last year to some success) it is not a good idea to have too many one trick ponies in your bullpen because it tends to burn out the pen too quickly (see Mets last year to some extent).

To summarize, Gutz is apparently going to immediately become Seattle's starting CFer. So we traded a potential future gold glove CFer with some power but questionable other offensive skills for a ROOGY and a guy whose offensive ceiling is probably Asdrubal Cabrera's curent offensive numbers in the majors but with less defense AND no versatility as a locked-in second baseman. Thus, in order for this trade to work out Gutierrez has to fall on his face as a starter and Smith and Valbuena have to reach their limited potential. Hmmm, seems like a deck stacked against us on this one.

So, be guarded if you want about this deal because that is the best I think anyone can be. If it is the extra inch we need to push us over the top, great. But you already know how that philosophy has worked out for the Indians under Shapiro so far.

Now, sit back and watch and listen to hear if Shapiro spins that Joe Smith is not just a situational righty and that Valbuena has the skills to hit 10-15 HR in the majors and be a gold glove defender. THAT is when you will know this trade is a bust and that Shapiro really has no idea how to do his job.

Oh, PLEASE give it a rest, Dennis. You are a one trick pony...and a whiny one at that. I am probably a bigger fan of Gutz than you, but I like this trade, as minor as it may be. I like Smith alot...a sidearmer with great stuff...a fastball that sits in the 89-92 range but can hit 94, plus a very good slider. He was the #9 ranked minor leaguer in the Mets system two years ago. We also got a 2B that just missed making the Mariners top 10 (read the BA chat) and was said to be the best defensive 2B in their system, plus a solid hitter that hit .303 (AA and AAA) and has a very good batting eye. The good potential of this trade far outweighs the bad. Sorry, Mr. Drama.

dnosco wrote:Remember, I was SCREAMING for them to do the Bay trade last year if it involved Shoppach, Laffey and Gutierrez because I thought the latter two would be exposed playing full time and Shoppach stood a 50/50 chance of the same thing.

...

To summarize, Gutz is apparently going to immediately become Seattle's starting CFer. So we traded a potential future gold glove CFer with some power but questionable other offensive skills

At first glance, I was happy about the trade. Getting a decent reliever and someone to hold down 2nd base is not a bad haul. Yet, the more I look at it, the more I see it as a wash of mediocre players.

First, I am not sad to see Gut go. Some people point to a breakout 2nd half where he went from .218 to .285 BA. Yet, he was being platooned a bit. So, I wonder how much of that was do to hitting lefties better than righties (.250 career lefty vs .281 righty). Last year his lefty vs. righty was almost even (I don't have the 2nd half breakdown only to prove my point, right or wrong) thus there may be some argument that he may have improved. Yet, with Choo and Francisco someone had to go. And. with Choo and Francisco having twice as many home runs at the same number of at bats, it wasn't too hard to see why Gut got the short straw.

Also, as others say, with Crowe, Laporta and Brantley coming up, someone had to go, I just wished it was Dellucci. Yet, hay, he hit .345 in August thus he must have improved right? And thus we should keep him??? yeah ...

Now we have Crowe having a shot of making it out of camp. Laporta can be a called-up after May when Dellucci bombs again. And, Brantley should see injury time before year-end. Then we have Head who can fill in as well. No shortage of outfielders here.

I do like Smith as a reliever. People are upset that he is not a 7th or 8th inning man because the other team would pinch hit a lefty against him. Yet, that isn't what you look for in Smith. He is the person you call in in the 6th inning when your starter is struggling and have 2 righties coming up with one out. We have Perez and Lewis for 7th and 8th innings with Betancourt and Kobi being possible improvements next year to help out.

The only thing with Smith is that it will cost us Mujica if no one is traded. Shapiro talked about an excess of outfielders, yet we have an excess of relievers. Yet, I am sure he is happy about this due to the crap we dealt with last year solidified his theory that you can never have enough. I just hope it doesn't cost us the mentality of our younger relievers in Meloan, Sipp, Stevens, Miller, ... who have to wait longer to see any action. I just wonder why we rostered Rundles on the 40. I don't see him being on the 25 man with Jackson or Meloan getting the long relief role and Smith getting the 6th man role and a long list of others ahead of him (Sipp, Miller, Stevens, etc.).

Hopefully we trade Shoppach and Kobi/Bentancourt for a MOR starter.

The one that got me puzzled is Valbuena. I was happy to see us get a 2nd baseman who had some time in September. I initially thought that this guy could compete for the 2nd base job in Spring Training. Heck he hit .300 last year. I don't mind taking another chance at a Barfield type player to see if they can pan out. Yet, last year was his first breakout year (hit .270 before this). And, Shapiro said he wasn't done with the infield, just wanted some depth in the minors. Yet, you now have Barfield and Valbuena at AAA next year with Rodriquez and Rivero in AA.

So is Barfield now totally out of the picture? Probably. And, why get AAA depth, when you will still need to get a 2nd or 3rd baseman to start next year. I don't mind having young guys compete Barfield/Valbuena/Marte to see who wins the battle, yet

- Barfield - basically toast in this organization (think a new place would do him good - I think he is a good .280 player in the right situation)- Valbuena - needs more seasoning with just 1 good minor league year behind him (as Shapiro said more minor league depth)- Marte - winner by default as Hodges needs 1/2 more year of seasoning.

Thus, we still need to bring in someone for a 2 year contract that will block Valbuena and Hodges. Doesn't make sense to me when you have Rivero, Hodges, Chisenhall, etc. starting to come up through the ranks. You just created a log-jam.

If Valbuena was major league ready, I would have been happier. Yet, to say we need to still address 2nd/3rd base with Hodges and now Valbuena being blocked by the solution, I just don't get it.

I do see the point the Dennis made in packaging Gut. for better players. I do agree with that. The question is why didn't we just try to get a 2nd/3rd baseman with just a bit more seasoning to be ready to take over on April 1. Why add, Smith to our package when we could have done a 1-1 with Gut for someone else in a different trade. And, if the prospect we would have gotten didn't pan out, you still have Hodges ready to come up by mid-season with Rivero and Rodriquez the next year.

For me, this better be a part of something to come. I just thought it would solve something for us April 1 and it may not have unless they give Valbuena a shot at 2nd.

And, even this doesn't make sense creating a battle of mediocre players. You can't go in to spring training saying it is a battle between Marte, Hodges, Valbuena and Barfield to see who is better to solidify our infield. You need to set the battle at 2nd or 3rd not both as you want Peralta to have time to settle into one position SS or 3rd, to get comfortable.

Thus, Shapiro pick your upgrade and make it a strong candidate instead of mediocre players who are either washed up or are 1/2 year away from the majors. Getting AAA players is just creating more log-jams where our younger players get upset and press too much and choke when called up.

I was hoping that I could write up this as a good trade. Yet, right now, I just see it as a wash and a bit upset Shapiro even settled for this trade. I think Valbuena can be good and overall we may have gotten better talent (being 1 for 2 trade). Yet, it isn't what this team need if he isn't ready to take over 2nd base on April 1. You just gave up a trading chip for nothing. We have enough mediocre players .... we needed a 1 for 1 or 2 for 1 trade for a MOR starter and 2nd/3rd baseman. Hopefully, Shapiro can package Mujica/Smith and Barfield/Valbuena for someone with just a bit more seasoning.

Unless Valbuena turned a corner in his development as a hitter this season I just don't see him as a major league player. He has decent HR power, but his doubles rate is pretty low and has consistently been pretty bad through his minor league career. Frankly, unless something major happened this past season changing his approach at the plate, vs a typical fluke season, I think the writeups I've seen about his lack of speed and range make it unlikely he is "the solution" for 2nd base.

To me the trade is basically Smith for Gutierrez, and I'm OK with this. As Dennis stated, Smith gets hit a bit by lefties, but I think that his stuff indicates that he may have sufficient abilities to improve this somewhat, perhaps turn into a Kent Tekulve type who keeps lefties at a .275-.280 BA vs his .300 plus today.

I like Choo and Francisco more than Gutierrez, and we have some talent in the pipelines. Heck, the Phillies found Victorino in Rule 5 so...

I actually have to agree with that... We've seen the kid play defense, and he has a hell of an arm. We've also seen him hit a good amount of home runs when he's played (he hit 13 home runs in 100 games in 07, there's plenty of room for improvement). I think last year was a learning year.. Remember it was only his second full year in the major leagues. I think a guy deserves another year before you start writing him off, especially since he put together a solid campaign in 2007.

Baseball is a game of adjustments, is it not?

I think we've given up on Gutierrez a little premature. I'd be a lot more fine with it if the return was A) More Promising or B) Made more sense by not putting us in a little bit of a bind as far as the major league roster goes.

I'm still waiting for some corresponding moves to clear up some questions, but on the surface, this deal is a little shaky.

cardiackidz wrote:well if your right art that smith turns into kent tekulve i'll make that trade everytime. tekulve was a bad ass in his day with the pirates.

He certainly was, and Smith seems to be worth the risk to me. At worst, he doesn't figure it out and becomes Bradford, and that isn't bad either. However, I wouldn't dismiss his potential improvement against lefties, and being more like Kent.

At this moment I'd view the trade as potentially helping out with the pen, while not losing much off the current squad. I'd still prefer the pickup of Joe Thurston for 2nd base though, I think he is overlooked and a potential bargain.

Duane Kuiper wrote:Smith was used in 82 games last year. One of only a handful to be over 80. (two of which the Mets traded away in this deal) In his third pro season. He will be a candidate for a sore arm in 09.

and he only pitched 63 innings. This is why relief appearances is such a useless stat -- it tells you nothing about a pitcher's workload. Smith a righty specialist with a sidearm delivery and heavy sinking fastball. He's just murder on righthanders, but lefties own him. The thing that makes him so valuable is that he's a great match-up guy and you can use him late in the game to neutralize the likes of Miguel Cabrera, Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye, etc. If we can carry a LOOGY, we basically have a killer bullpen (if Wood signs of course).

Speaking of Kerry Wood, if he signs and Betancourt can somehow return to his former self (probably not the 07 version, but something in between), it shortens the game to 6 innings (maybe even 5). Betancourt in the 6th, Lewis in the 7th, Perez the 8th and Wood to close it out. I really like our bullpen depth right now and that's without the likes of Miller, Meloan, Stevens, Sipp and perhaps Wagner, Bryson and Newsom further down the road.

Cleveland has done a little asset management here, flipping Gutierrez for Joe Smith, a low-slot, right-handed specialist who's a step below Green and can pitch for Cleveland in 2009, and Luis Valbuena, a slightly bad-bodied second baseman with a good idea at the plate and some doubles power. Valbuena could end up an average big league second baseman, but conditioning is going to remain an issue for him over the long run.

dnosco wrote:Remember, I was SCREAMING for them to do the Bay trade last year if it involved Shoppach, Laffey and Gutierrez because I thought the latter two would be exposed playing full time and Shoppach stood a 50/50 chance of the same thing.

...

To summarize, Gutz is apparently going to immediately become Seattle's starting CFer. So we traded a potential future gold glove CFer with some power but questionable other offensive skills

Huh? How can you believe both?

It's not what I believe it's what Seattle believes. He will certainly, in Seattle, get his CHANCE to reach his potential. I don't think he will ever reach his potential but that is the gamble, isn't it? However, if he ever turns into a .270/.430/.350/.780 guy with gold glove defense and a cannon arm in CF, he is a huge asset, bigger than anything we can get out of Smith and Valbuena, based on scouting reports.

dnosco wrote:Remember, I was SCREAMING for them to do the Bay trade last year if it involved Shoppach, Laffey and Gutierrez because I thought the latter two would be exposed playing full time and Shoppach stood a 50/50 chance of the same thing.

...

To summarize, Gutz is apparently going to immediately become Seattle's starting CFer. So we traded a potential future gold glove CFer with some power but questionable other offensive skills

Huh? How can you believe both?

It's not what I believe it's what Seattle believes. He will certainly, in Seattle, get his CHANCE to reach his potential. I don't think he will ever reach his potential but that is the gamble, isn't it? However, if he ever turns into a .270/.430/.350/.780 guy with gold glove defense and a cannon arm in CF, he is a huge asset, bigger than anything we can get out of Smith and Valbuena, based on scouting reports.

wow, all I can think is wow

your complaining because if a guy who you dont think will reach his potential reaches his potential even though he has never shown any signs of reachign said ability,that he would then be better than the two guys we traded for if they reach max potential. Smith makes them better next year, and valbuena gives us depth where they are weak

cardiackidz wrote:well if your right art that smith turns into kent tekulve i'll make that trade everytime. tekulve was a bad ass in his day with the pirates.

He certainly was, and Smith seems to be worth the risk to me. At worst, he doesn't figure it out and becomes Bradford, and that isn't bad either. However, I wouldn't dismiss his potential improvement against lefties, and being more like Kent.

At this moment I'd view the trade as potentially helping out with the pen, while not losing much off the current squad. I'd still prefer the pickup of Joe Thurston for 2nd base though, I think he is overlooked and a potential bargain.

Art, I see your point, but it is my point, too. Smith helps this team this year. Valbuena, maybe not so much. As far as not losing much off the current squad, that is IF Gutierrez is only as good this year as last year, or worse. If he improves to the numbers above, then, unless Smith becomes more than a ROOGY, I see no way we gain long-term in this trade. So, as I said yesterday, for this to be an overall win for us Gutierrez has to flop,i.e., continue at his 2008 level....or he can improve if Smith becomes good against lefties. However, in my opinion, if Gutierrez prospers and Smith stays a roogy, no way Valbuena can ever even this deal with his skills.

towards your Joe Thurston comment I will go you one better. I think Corey Wimberly may turn out to be a better major leaguer than Valbuena. Usually US kids do not do as well at Latin kids in reaching potential, at least that's my opnion, so Valbuena has a leg up in terms of desire, I think. Still, if the goal was to get a starting secondbaseman who is questionably ready, I think Wimberly is the way to go. However, given that no one selected him today, I obviously overrate Wimberly.

The thing to remember here is Gutierrez would have been relegated at best to a 4th outfielder role here in 2009, so it is hard to compare what he would have done in Cleveland in 2009 vs what he does in Seattle in 2009. The Indians struck while he still had value because another year on the bench, and especially without options, he would have been DFAed by midseason if he performed poorly.

Dennis, the Indians did exactly as you always wish them to do, which is trade a guy who is on the roster bubble and getting something for him instead of dumping him for nothing. Yet, you still aren't happy. Man, tough crowd.

Duane Kuiper wrote:Smith was used in 82 games last year. One of only a handful to be over 80. (two of which the Mets traded away in this deal) In his third pro season. He will be a candidate for a sore arm in 09.

and he only pitched 63 innings. This is why relief appearances is such a useless stat -- it tells you nothing about a pitcher's workload.

Pitching an average every other day the whole season is far tougher than pitching 2-3 innings per week with 2-3 days between appearances because of the lack of rest between games. The total amount of innings is the same but the rest on the arm is far different.

Consigliere wrote:The thing to remember here is Gutierrez would have been relegated at best to a 4th outfielder role here in 2009, so it is hard to compare what he would have done in Cleveland in 2009 vs what he does in Seattle in 2009. The Indians struck while he still had value because another year on the bench, and especially without options, he would have been DFAed by midseason if he performed poorly.

Dennis, the Indians did exactly as you always wish them to do, which is trade a guy who is on the roster bubble and getting something for him instead of dumping him for nothing. Yet, you still aren't happy. Man, tough crowd.

I AM happy they traded him. Heck, I already said that I would have gladly traded him last year in the Bay trade, a trade, by the way, that I don't believe everyone would have been happy with. I am unhappy with the return of this trade. As I said, Gutierrez has to get no better and the other guys have to continue to perform as is (Smith) or reach their full potential for this to be a good trade.

Essentially we traded Gutierrez to Seattle who saw the potential to buy low and took it. Big risk on their part based on current results. No true upside on our part. All the ifs and buts about Smith's changeup...do you really think they haven't been trying to develop the guy's changeup for 3 or more years and, guess what, it hasn't stuck. The other guy is 5'9" and can't play SS, apparently. He may turn out great but he has the deck stacked against him: height, positional limitations, potential weight problems. Yeah, you can convince yourself we got a good deal but really, when we have to say that the guy's downside is Chad Bradford (when that is more likely his upside) and then say that having Ronnie Belliard upside is anything to write home about means, to me, you are trying to convince yourself of more than is there.

You're the one that makes more of the return than everybody else. Who said Smith has to get lefties out? who said he has to throw a changeup? He was acquired as righthanded specialist and that's what he'll be for whatever team has him in the pen. There's no shame in that, especially when someone's that good at it. Given the fact that we "signed" Wood, we can do with a guy that might not be a dynamite setup man. It's just one extra piece to building a very solid bullpen.

I don't see what Valbuena's height has to do with anything. There have been a number of short middle infielders who can get by just fine (he's 5'10'' btw). The weight COULD be a problem, but isn't right now. He's made enormous strides last year both offensively and defensively, and actually just missed BA's top 10 (though I believe you hated those). Everything I've read about him in the prospect books written by scouts and comments made by Seattle fans say the same thing -- he won't be a star, but he could become a very nice everyday second baseman with good OBP skills, some pop at the plate and above-average defense. In fact, some scout even said he can already play in the majors based on his glove and most believe his power will continue to develop. What's wrong with that?

Why do you have to spit on every move this club makes? It clearly has become an act and part of your "image". Did you like Randy Quaid so much in Major League II that you wanted to be him?

Gutz would never be anything more than a 4th outfielder/platoon guy for us unless something happened to Grady. It's not buying low on the M's part, because every team knows what he is. If you have a hole in center and you can live with horrible plate discipline, but solid power and great defense -- he's your guy. Even if he becomes average or slightly above average with the bat, it wouldn't make the return on our part any worse. Gutz was a luxury for us and when you need to fill holes elsewhere you can't hang on to those players. I think we got fair value for him -- a solid reliever who can neutralize any righthanded hitter he faces (who btw is only 24-years old and cheap as hell for the next few years) and a young middle infielder (not an area of depth to say the least) with upside both offensively and defensively who is very close to the majors.

JP_Frost wrote:You are absolutely unbelievable.Why do you have to spit on every move this club makes? It clearly has become an act and part of your "image". Did you like Randy Quaid so much in Major League II that you wanted to be him?

Consigliere wrote:The thing to remember here is Gutierrez would have been relegated at best to a 4th outfielder role here in 2009, so it is hard to compare what he would have done in Cleveland in 2009 vs what he does in Seattle in 2009. The Indians struck while he still had value because another year on the bench, and especially without options, he would have been DFAed by midseason if he performed poorly.

Dennis, the Indians did exactly as you always wish them to do, which is trade a guy who is on the roster bubble and getting something for him instead of dumping him for nothing. Yet, you still aren't happy. Man, tough crowd.

I AM happy they traded him. Heck, I already said that I would have gladly traded him last year in the Bay trade, a trade, by the way, that I don't believe everyone would have been happy with. I am unhappy with the return of this trade. As I said, Gutierrez has to get no better and the other guys have to continue to perform as is (Smith) or reach their full potential for this to be a good trade.

Essentially we traded Gutierrez to Seattle who saw the potential to buy low and took it. Big risk on their part based on current results. No true upside on our part. All the ifs and buts about Smith's changeup...do you really think they haven't been trying to develop the guy's changeup for 3 or more years and, guess what, it hasn't stuck. The other guy is 5'9" and can't play SS, apparently. He may turn out great but he has the deck stacked against him: height, positional limitations, potential weight problems. Yeah, you can convince yourself we got a good deal but really, when we have to say that the guy's downside is Chad Bradford (when that is more likely his upside) and then say that having Ronnie Belliard upside is anything to write home about means, to me, you are trying to convince yourself of more than is there.

frankly you just sound like you trying to defend your the Indians do nothing right position but to me it sounds like your talking out your ass. Smith has already pitched better than bradford the last two years and why is his height of 5'10" even an issue the guy has legit skills and even with the body issues has managed to play a solid second base

JP_Frost wrote:You are absolutely unbelievable.Why do you have to spit on every move this club makes? It clearly has become an act and part of your "image". Did you like Randy Quaid so much in Major League II that you wanted to be him?

JP_Frost wrote:You are absolutely unbelievable.Why do you have to spit on every move this club makes? It clearly has become an act and part of your "image". Did you like Randy Quaid so much in Major League II that you wanted to be him?

Best. Quote. Ever.

Jake you beat me to it but im still posting it. haha

I know Johnny is saying this in this shot, but one of his best lines I think besides when Vaughn comes out of the pen and Johnny is heckling him and Vaughn who is back to being Wild Thing and tells him what somewhere along the lines of shove something somewhere forget the exacts, anways,

Johnny: [catches the ball in the stands for a home run] NO! You rotten bums! You overpaid weenies! Mild thing, you make my butt sting! I *detest* you! You're all garbage! All of ya! Back up the truck! Back it up!

one final note on Valbuena was reading the chat for the mariners top ten on BA and they say in the chat he is 10B as it was pretty much a tie for the final spot, also called up a fearless top of the order hitter who never gives up on an at bat more I read the more I like

jellis wrote:one final note on Valbuena was reading the chat for the mariners top ten on BA and they say in the chat he is 10B as it was pretty much a tie for the final spot, also called up a fearless top of the order hitter who never gives up on an at bat more I read the more I like

Me too. A Mariners fan let me know that Valbuena's defense (and offense for that matter) really took off last season. He pretty much went from an average defender to a plus defender. If he can continue that trend and keep the same approach at the plate, I think we could have ourselves a nice everyday 2nd baseman.

If Valbuena is a couple of ticks more than Cabrera offensively we have a find. If he is about equal to or less than Cabrera offensively then you really can't have both of them in the lineup in the AL since Valbuena is an average or slightly above average defender. I don't think anyone here would want Jamey Carroll and Cabrera starting together full-time and that is what we are talking about with Valbuena EXCEPT if Valbuena can walk at an exceptional rate and can steal 25+ bases a year or if he is a 15 HR hitter. In other words he has to have some plus offensive skill. He could do it, to be sure. I am just not going to try to convince myself that a short, squat second base-only guy is anything more than a throw-in until he proves otherwise. Considering that he has never broken the 10 ten for Seattle, a team who has a routinely weak farm system, I am not the only one who questions his upside. Now, that being said, it is a great throw-in to this deal as he COULD blossom given his plate discipline and that he has hit a few HR in the minors. If he does become a viable offensive and defensive option at second base then this is a good trade.

Regarding Smith, I looked through all major league teams last year and the only guys I found who were ROOGYs were Wasserman from the White Sox, Bradford from Baltimore/Tampa and Smith, although Bradford did face a lot of lefties, as well. Teams just don't tend to keep ROOGYs. There were a number of LOOGYs. Also, although I could be wrong, I think part of the Mets' collapse last year, and part of the reason that teams have LOOGYs but not ROOGYs, showed up in that the Mets' bullpen was burned out because they had both Schoenweis and Smith throwing to 1 or 2 batters an outing meaning the other guys still had to pitch and more often than if Smith or Schoenweis went longer (actually Schoenweis did face a lot of righties). I see potential for a Smith/Perez combo back-to-back in the bullpen but I think it makes keeping a LOOGY like Rundles very problematic unless you keep 13 pitchers. So, as far as I could tell Smith was the best ROOGY in baseball, but do teams really think that spot is needed or even possible during a long season?

dnosco wrote:If Valbuena is a couple of ticks more than Cabrera offensively we have a find. If he is about equal to or less than Cabrera offensively then you really can't have both of them in the lineup in the AL since Valbuena is an average or slightly above average defender. I don't think anyone here would want Jamey Carroll and Cabrera starting together full-time and that is what we are talking about with Valbuena EXCEPT if Valbuena can walk at an exceptional rate and can steal 25+ bases a year or if he is a 15 HR hitter. In other words he has to have some plus offensive skill. He could do it, to be sure. I am just not going to try to convince myself that a short, squat second base-only guy is anything more than a throw-in until he proves otherwise. Considering that he has never broken the 10 ten for Seattle, a team who has a routinely weak farm system, I am not the only one who questions his upside. Now, that being said, it is a great throw-in to this deal as he COULD blossom given his plate discipline and that he has hit a few HR in the minors. If he does become a viable offensive and defensive option at second base then this is a good trade.

Regarding Smith, I looked through all major league teams last year and the only guys I found who were ROOGYs were Wasserman from the White Sox, Bradford from Baltimore/Tampa and Smith, although Bradford did face a lot of lefties, as well. Teams just don't tend to keep ROOGYs. There were a number of LOOGYs. Also, although I could be wrong, I think part of the Mets' collapse last year, and part of the reason that teams have LOOGYs but not ROOGYs, showed up in that the Mets' bullpen was burned out because they had both Schoenweis and Smith throwing to 1 or 2 batters an outing meaning the other guys still had to pitch and more often than if Smith or Schoenweis went longer (actually Schoenweis did face a lot of righties). I see potential for a Smith/Perez combo back-to-back in the bullpen but I think it makes keeping a LOOGY like Rundles very problematic unless you keep 13 pitchers. So, as far as I could tell Smith was the best ROOGY in baseball, but do teams really think that spot is needed or even possible during a long season?

It's funny that when the Indians BA top 10 came out you said that their top 10's usually aren't that good, but all of a sudden it's a sign that Valbuena is a weak prospect because he never made the M's top 10 (BA stated he was 11 btw and could've easily been #10). What is wrong with a 2nd baseman that can put up a .750 OPS while playing good defense? That's very valuable, especially when it's a guy that's cheap and under control for a number of years. The same goes for Joe Smith, just because he's a ROOGY doesn't mean he can't be valuable. Our bullpen is solid enough now that we can carry a specialist to provide better match up options.

Smith can sufficiently hang in there against lefties, but he certainly has work to do to improve against them. Reading the scouting reports on his stuff, it appears that he still has some learning to do about how to use his stuff to set up left handed batters. But he might do it.

I'm not as confident about Valbuena, I still see those batting averages of .261 in 2005 (287 ABs), .252 in 2006 (163 ABs), and .239 in 2007 (444 ABs) and still have concerns. I know about his being pushed in the Seattle system, and I know his overall BA in the minors is .270 in almost 1700 ABs, so I'm willing to be open minded that he figured something out this past season, as evidenced by his improved BB/K ration from 2007. But his historical BB/K is pretty consistent when you eliminate 2007, and I don't see developing power in his progression, only 26 doubles in over 500 ABs this season.

Perhaps he will be really good, he certainly is still young enough to grow. However, a comp of Belliard would show that Ronnie did much better than Valbuena when playing at very high minor league levels for his age, no comparison at all.

Regarding Gutierrez, I think his power looks really good, but his lack of development of a better AB/BB and BB/K rate, makes me think he may have a batting ceiling of Jay Payton if he gets a good opportunity. Not bad, but nothing special. At this time, I have more confidence in Francisco and Choo. Keep an eye on Francisco, he has a very strong history of making outstanding adjustments at each minor league level. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him bat .290-.300 this season with decent power.

"How can a ROOGY pitch over 80 innings and still have an ERA in the 3.00's? Smith is a decent reliever and more than a ROOGY."

"Smith can sufficiently hang in there against lefties,"

Now, again, this is where I have a problem. Because people WANT him to be Smith is more than a ROOGY. No, he can't. Last year his AB ratio was 50 against lefthanders and 182 vs righthanders. He pitched in 82 games and 63 innings. Do you know how insane that L/R ratio of batters faced is? Except for Wasserman in Chicago (who was a disaster), no RH relief pitcher was more than about 50/50 (interestingly Cole Hamels had a hugely weighted L/R ratio as a starter). He is a ROOGY as the stats I posted show who is terrible against LH batters. He is a ROOGY.

Wow, going all the way back to Nellie Fox! So, in 70 years that's the best we can do? Now, I am sure there are others so don't go scrambling for your Baseball Register. The point is that when you are looking for exceptions to prove your point, you are grasping for straws and, when you use examples, I think, to be fair, you would have to factor in body mass index in this case. If you do that, how does the analogy apply? I did not say that he COULDN'T suceed just that it is a strike against him as a prospect...and I hold to that position.

Again, when you are straining to find anything about the guys to make them look better then you have to know that these guys have warts, as does Gutierrez. The problem is, without much improvement, Gutierrez is a serviceable MLer and with significant improvement he is a good one. Right now Smith is a ROOGY, a rare commodity possibly because theams feel that a ROOGY is a luxury that you can't afford in construction of you ML roster and Valbuena would also be a luxury with Cabrera in your lineup, especially since Valbuena is not a defensive wiz, i.e., he won't be taking many runs away or producing that many runs from the only position he can probably play: second base, which, in the AL, is usually an offensive-first position as your list of smallish secondbaseman above shows.

So, let's make a deal, stop straining to find any scrap of evidence that would support these guys being more than they are and I will stop talking about this trade and pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments being made.

BTW, regarding the comment that I didn't put much faith in individual BA top 10 ratings, point well-taken. That is why I pointed out a body of work where THREE different people ranked the top 10 for Seattle over a period of 5 years. That takes some of the personal preference that I called into question out of the equation, doesn't it?

OK, I am done here. I don't think it was a deal with much upside, I think the guy, Smith, we got is a luxury that ML teams don't generally consider required and I think that Valbuena may be a luxury in the AL, too, if he doesn't have one outstanding offensive skill to go with his good plate discipline. So far, for an AL secondbaseman he doesn't seem to possess any and he is a secondbase only guy, apparently.

Sorry I used nellie Fox I figured since he was one of the all time greats it was worth a mention, instead I just went to the yahoo depth charts and in about 5 minutes made a list of 5"10" or smaller infielders. if I made it sub 6 feet the list would be huge

13 teams had starting 2b who where 5"10 or smaller. That doesnt count all the backs up like fontenot who got a lot of play or the SS who could play 2B

Are the indians taking a risk yes, but so is Seattle. We have seen frankie for a lot of years now and I am pretty sure valbuenas already a better hitter than Franky. The reason is in all the time and help he has had with the Indians he has never gained any semblance of pitch recognition or the ability to consistently hit. We traded a OF who might win a gold glove and yes might hit 20-22 HR but he will also hit 250-260 with 160 K's and 40 walks a year. He is a guy who has shown nothing to make anyone believe he can ever have anything other than a low 700 OPS. So the Indians get smith, yes hes a Roogy and no I am not going to argue that he can gain another pitch or do anything major to improve. It doesnt change the fact that when used well its a hugely valuable asset. He doesnt just get righties out, they stand almost no chance against him. I know you say no team can have a player like him on it, but isn't he more valuable then a Mastny who was on our play off roster. If he is the last guy from your pen I dont see an issue, especially since we have the luxury of perez who is a lefty who is not a Loogy and can get everyone out. lastly knock valbuena all you want and yes he has to prove a lot this year, but everythign I have read on his approach at the plate makes him sound like a solid number 2 hitter. He plays an above average defense, he wont strike out and he works a lot of counts. You knock it saying he doesnt have any major skills, but right now the Indians would kill for a proven guy with those same skills at 2B so even if he does become a 280 hitter walks 75 times a year, plays above average defense and clubs 30 doubles, that is a very useful player in this league. All of those projections are very possible for him and if they where true he would start at 2B tomorrow.

Of course, who wouldn't want to give up a 3rd starter or starting caliber 2nd baseman for a center fielder who has yet to prove he can be a big boy at the plate after two years in the bigs.

I liked Frankie too, and of course he still has potential, but if you think he was going to bring a legit MOR starter or veteran 2B, you're kidding yourself. Although, judging by your previous relentless slamming of this organizations moves, you probably are.

dnosco wrote:We agree on Frankie. I just think we could have done better packaging him to get someone we really need like an offensive secondbaseman or a #3 starter.

alright, please come up with a trade scenario. I'm dying to see what you think a Gutierrez package could realistically net us.

I agree with Dennis on this ... I also said we maybe should have waited and package Gut. I think we got more value back. Yet, if we got 2nd baseman (1-year off) and a 6th inning reliever, could we have found a 1 for 1 to get a 2nd baseman who could start April 1? We didn't need a Philips yet someone who was at AAA for full year and ready to start. Don't know what is out there for 2nd basemen, yet it doesn't seem too far off to expect someone closer in a 1 for 1 trade for giving up Smith in a 2 for 1.

Now for some packages to think about ... with NY and Boston having solid 1-4 starters and question marks with older catchers and could us a CF backup...

Shoppach straight up for Masterson, Kennedy or HughesShoppach and Gut for BuccholzShoppach, Gut and Huff for Hughes and KennedyShoppach, Gut, Carroll and Huff for Buccholz, Masterson, Lugo (and cash) and prospects

I know they are not your #3 pitcher. Yet, they all had tough years last year (except for Masterson) and have plenty of upside for teams who are patient thus we could have more pitching prospects to battle for the 4/5 slots for bigger upside there to account for a ? at #3. We could have even thrown in Stevens/Meloan if I had undervalued them.

I think the issue is Valbuena could solve a long-term issue. Yet, for this year, he may do nothing (if we keep him at AAA). Thus, we didn't solve any hole just made it harder to solve them by having one less trading chip.

That would potentially be the worst trade in the history of Boston, they're giving up their two best pitching prospects for 3 backups and a lower rated pitching prospect. Throwing in Jamey Carroll like he's of value to the Sox just shows how desperate you are in trying to come up with examples.

Not one of those trades is realistic.

Last edited by TheWord on Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joe Smith gave up an earned run in 19 of his 82 appearances last season (23% of his games).

Last season, Betancourt gave up an earned run in 23 of his 69 appearances last season (33% of his games). Now in his great season (2007) he gave up a run in 13 of 68 appearances (19% of his games).

Considering this performance by Smith includes his "lefty troubles", it seems to me that we have the potential for someone to put up "Benancourt 2007" numbers with just a slight improvement in performance against lefties.